Filed: Sep. 30, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6123 SHAMAR RASHI HINES, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JOHN OWENS, Warden; FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cv-02843-RBH) Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shamar Rashi Hine
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6123 SHAMAR RASHI HINES, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JOHN OWENS, Warden; FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cv-02843-RBH) Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shamar Rashi Hines..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6123
SHAMAR RASHI HINES,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOHN OWENS, Warden; FCI WILLIAMSBURG,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cv-02843-RBH)
Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shamar Rashi Hines, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shamar Rashi Hines, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Hines v. Owens, No.
4:10-cv-02843-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2